NextNewsNetwork·Feb 26, 2013
The NDAA has been called the death of our republican form of government. That acronym refers to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012, which contains a provision allowing the president to order the indefinite military detention of anyone accused of offering substantial support to al-Qaeda or “associated forces.”
The measure does not define critical terms — for instance, what groups would be considered “associated forces.” And it applies to U.S. citizens, who — under the ambiguous and expansive terms of that measure — could be detained by the military, on U.S. soil, until what the measure calls the “end of hostilities,” which in the open-ended war on terror could mean forever. According to Obama administration spokesmen, the NDAA could be used to imprison war correspondents and other journalists who cover terrorism-related issues.
The NDAA has no parallel in American history. In fact, it is without precedent in the history of Anglo-Saxon law since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215. Perhaps the closest historical kindred to the NDAA would be Article 58 of the Soviet Criminal Code, which allowed for arrest and summary imprisonment of anyone suspected of working to undermine the Soviet state.
Journalist and activist Tangerine Bolen is one of eight plaintiffs in a lawsuit against the NDAA. Although she voted for Obama, she describes herself as “terrified” by the arbitrary powers that the president and his advisers can now exercise in the name of fighting terrorism.
Mainstream Still Silent on NDAA
breakingtheset·Feb 22, 2013
Manuel Rapalo talks to Alexa O’Brien, journalist and plaintiff in the lawsuit against the NDAA’s indefinite detention clause, about the latest in the case and why the issue has yet to permeate the mainstream media.